"I said I thought we would bring this up prior to us leaving here," said Hoyer. "I have not changed on that, although I would be less than candid [not] to say that there are a number of people who are revisiting their own positions."

President Bush called on House leaders Wednesday to abandon the measure. "Congress has more important work to do than antagonizing a democratic ally in the Muslim world, especially one that's providing vital support for our military every day."

Bush also said at a Wednesday news conference that "... one thing Congress should not be doing is sorting out the historical record of the Ottoman Empire," the predecessor of modern Turkey.

By a 27-21 vote last week, the House Foreign Affairs Committee adopted the resolution, which formally identifies the killings as genocide. Turkish officials acknowledge the killings of Armenians during World War I but vehemently object to the designation "genocide."

The U.S. and Iraqi governments fear the proposed resolution could harm Washington's influence with Turkish officials who want to launch military raids against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq. Washington officials are concerned the Turkish raids would further destabilize the region.

Originally filed by one consumer in northern California, the lawsuit claims the companies' joint venture violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, which is usually used in organized crime cases. Successful RICO claims provide for triple damage awards in civil cases.

In a friend-of-the-court filing on behalf of the companies, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the filing of civil cases invoking RICO is out of control and urged the Supreme Court to hear the case as a way to determine whether the use RICO should be reined in.

Under the joint venture, Microsoft invested $200 million in Best Buy in April 2000, and agreed to promote the company's online store through its Internet access service, MSN. In turn, Best Buy agreed to promote MSN in its stores.

The dispute began in 2003, when James Odom sued the companies after purchasing a laptop computer at a Best Buy store. Odom alleged that Best Buy included a software CD with his purchase that provided a six-month free trial to MSN.

Best Buy allegedly signed Odom up an MSN account with the credit card Odom used to pay for the computer. After a six-month free trial ended, Microsoft began charging him for the account, the suit charged.

Odom is one of two lead plaintiffs in a class-action suit involving thousands of consumers with similar claims, said Daniel Girard, a lead attorney on the case in San Francisco.

The lawsuit alleges the companies violated RICO by engaging in wire fraud when they electronically transmitted the plaintiffs' financial information. The plaintiffs are claiming damages in the "tens of millions," which if tripled would top $100 million, Girard said.

Microsoft has denied illegal conduct in response to these allegations and a Best Buy spokeswoman says the company does not comment on pending litigation.

In papers filed in court, the companies said their joint marketing agreement did not constitute an ongoing "enterprise," as required under the RICO statute.

The appeals court ruling that the companies' venture constituted an enterprise would greatly expand RICO's scope, Microsoft and Best Buy said.

The 9th Circuit's decision would "convert a statute designed to eradicate organized crime into a tool to induce settlements from legitimate businesses," the companies said. Most corporations "cannot risk the possibility of an award of treble damages" or the "reputational injury" of being sued under a law "associated with racketeers and mobsters," they added.

In its filing, the Chamber said civil RICO "is becoming one of the most frequent and damaging devices used against businesses." Over 4,500 RICO cases have been filed since 2001, the Chamber said, with only 35 of those filed by the government.

The case is Microsoft Corp. v. Odom, 07-138. Chief Justice John Roberts did not participate in the decision to turn down the case, the court said. As is customary, no reason was given, but Roberts' 2006 financial disclosure shows he owned Microsoft stock that year.

A pair of former users of Sprint Fidelis cardiac leads made by Medtronic Inc. (MDT) said Tuesday they are suing the medical device firm over injuries they claim to have sustained from the product.

The two are suing both for their own damages and as members of a class of all users of the leads.

The suit, filed in federal court in Minnesota, has plaintiffs Leonard Stavish and Kelly Liusi alleging the lead wire portion of the implanted heart defibrillators was defective and they "received jolting shocks when it falsely detected that the user needed a jolt from the device, or that the device failed, so that when they actually needed defibrillation they could not get it," according to their attorneys.

-William Spain; 415-439-6400

Kenyetta Whipper, James' mother, contacted Liberty Counsel and met with Barbee. Liberty Counsel officials said they also sent a letter to the school's principal explaining that schools "cannot censor our religious speech" in events like a talent show for which students choose their own material to perform.

The lawsuit is one more symptom of a softening housing market. The median price of an existing condo in Lee County has fallen 38 percent from February 2006, at $353,900, the highest on record, to $218,800 in August 2007, the last month available, according to the Florida Association of Realtors. For single-family homes, the price has fallen 22 percent from the all-time high of $322,300 in December 2005 to $250,800 in August 2007.

Builders in Southwest Florida are seeing such challenges more and more, said Christopher Shields, a real estate attorney with the Pavese law firm in Fort Myers.

"Potential purchasers are trying to get out of their contracts," he said. "Typically in a rising market, it doesn't matter whether or not a developer has committed violations at all, the buyer goes ahead and closes because he thinks the property is going to be worth more next year."

Now that prices are soft, however, "They look for reasons where perhaps the developer is in violation of federal and state disclosure requirements."

Some recent examples of similar suits by both buyers and builders trying to make the best of contracts signed in better times:

• A federal class action lawsuit brought by people who bought houses from First Home Builders alleges that they were defrauded by the developer and real estate brokerage D'Alessandro & Woodyard in a program to sell homes as an investment with a guaranteed rate of return.

• Advantage Builders of America in March sued 13 people for more than $15,000 in damages and attorneys' fees because they entered into contracts to buy houses in Lehigh Acres and Cape Coral but didn't make payments.

• The builders of Sail Harbour in February asked the court to force 29 people to close on their deals in the south Fort Myers development.

The suit against WCI was filed in federal court by David Berry and John Schrenkel, who signed up to buy Unit 1202 in the Florencia building at The Colony Golf & Bay Club in Estero.

They say WCI ran afoul of the Interstate Land Sale Act, which regulates the sale or lease of land from developers.

In this case, WCI violated the act by neglecting to include a provision in the contract giving a buyer 20 days to make things right after being notified that he's in default of the contract, said Miami-based attorney Robert Cooper, who filed the suit.

That means, he said, that "if some purchaser accidentally fails to do x, y or z, the builder can't just take the deposit."

In this case, Schrenkel and Berry want out of the contract and their $115,000 deposit returned.

But WCI attorney Thomas Roehn told Cooper in a July 2 letter that it's all just a misunderstanding. "Inadvertently, the 20 days notice of default and opportunity to cure was provided to the seller rather than the purchaser."

That means the buyers aren't entitled to their money back, the letter says. "WCI looks forward to Mr. Schrenkel and Mr. Berry closing upon their purchase of Unit 1202 at Florencia."

Cooper filed the case anyway, seeking damages for his clients and any other Florencia buyer in the same situation.

He said this is the first case he's seen in which the 20-day default protection for the buyer was left out. "I have not seen other developers screw this provision up."

If successful, the suit would be the latest bad news for WCI, which reported a $33 million loss for the quarter ending June 30 as condo tower sales all but dried up and traditional home sales were sluggish.

On Aug. 30, billionaire investor Carl Icahn gained influence on the company's board as he, two close associates, three incumbents and three jointly nominated members were elected to the board.

The case involved Khaled el-Masri, who says he was detained while on vacation in Macedonia in late 2003, transported by the United States to Afghanistan and held there for five months in a secret prison before being taken to Albania and set free, evidently having been mistaken for a terrorism suspect with a similar name.

Mr. Masri says he was tortured while in the prison. After prosecutors in Germany investigated the case, a court there issued arrest warrants in January for 13 agents of the Central Intelligence Agency. The German Parliament is continuing to investigate the episode, which has become a very public example of the United States government’s program of "extraordinary rendition."

Mr. Masri, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, brought a lawsuit in federal court against George J. Tenet, director of central intelligence from 1997 to 2004; three private airline companies; and 20 people identified only as John Doe. He sought damages for treatment that he said violated both the Constitution and international law.

Shortly after he filed the lawsuit in December 2005, the government intervened to seek its dismissal under the state secrets privilege, asserting that to have to provide evidence in the case would compromise national security. That argument succeeded in the Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., which dismissed the case without permitting Mr. Masri’s lawyers to take discovery. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., upheld the dismissal in March.

In their Supreme Court appeal, El-Masri v. United States, No. 06-1613, Mr. Masri’s lawyers argued that these rulings allowed the state secrets doctrine to become "unmoored" from its origins as a rule to be invoked to shield specific evidence in a lawsuit against the government, rather than to dismiss an entire case before any evidence was produced.

The Supreme Court created the doctrine in a 1953 decision, United States v. Reynolds, which began as a lawsuit by survivors of three civilians who had died in the crash of a military aircraft. In pretrial discovery, the plaintiffs sought the official accident report.

But the government, asserting that the report included information about the plane’s secret mission and the equipment that it was testing, refused to reveal it. The Supreme Court upheld the government, ruling that evidence should not be disclosed when "there is a reasonable danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose military matters which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged."

Mr. Masri’s lawyers argued that this decision, which the court has occasionally invoked but has not revisited, did not justify dismissing a case before any evidence was requested. Ben Wizner, Mr. Masri’s lawyer at the civil liberties union, said in an interview that the courts had permitted the doctrine to evolve from an evidentiary privilege to a broad grant of immunity, a way for the executive branch to shield itself from judicial scrutiny.

In this case, Solicitor General Paul D. Clement offered to let the justices see, "under appropriate security measures," the classified declaration that the government filed in the lower courts to support its claim of privilege. The court evidently did not think that step was necessary.

The court will soon have other opportunities to revisit the state secrets issue. Last week the A.C.L.U. filed an appeal that raises the issue as part of a challenge to the National Security Agency’s program of wiretapping without court warrants.